Effects of Complete and Incomplete Instructions on the Performance of University Students in a Problem-Solving Task

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of different levels of instruction on performance in a problem-solving task, from a radical behaviorist perspective, manipulating instruction completeness (minimal or complete) and evaluating its effects on rule formulation and the execution of a stimulus organization task. Twenty-eight university students were allocated to either the Complete Instructions Group (IC) or the Minimal Instructions Group (IM). Results indicated that the IC Group exhibited a higher probability of success in the first response and a lower total number of errors, suggesting that detailed instructions facilitate the acquisition of complex behavior. The experimental task required participants to organize 12 stimuli—six figures (ball, chair, dice, knife, cat, and pencil) and six corresponding words—in alphabetical order using Chaining 1.0 software. Instructions were manipulated to expose the IC Group to all “golden-words” deemed necessary for formulating appropriate rules: “touch,” “figures,” “words,” “alphabetical order,” and “correspondence.” Dependent variables included the time to complete the task, total errors, number of trials, inter-response time (IRT), rule formulation, and time to formulation. Findings indicated that the IM Group exhibited more errors, required more trials, and longer rule formulation times compared to the IC Group; statistical analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square tests, confirmed significant differences between groups in error rates, first-response accuracy, and rule formulation. These results suggest that instructional control is a pivotal variable in complex task resolution, emphasizing the importance of contingency specification for establishing effective solving-problem behaviors; the study supports the notion that detailed instructions can efficiently establish behavior, reducing the need for direct exposure to contingencies, and highlights the role of verbal behavior in problem-solving, with the specificity of instructions affecting the accuracy of initial responses and overall task completion. In conclusion, this research contributes to understanding how instructional variables determine behavior in problem-solving contexts, underscoring the relevance of instructional control in analyzing verbal and non-verbal behavior. The findings have implications for educational and therapeutic practices, suggesting that detailed instructions can facilitate the acquisition of complex skills and improve outcomes in behavioral interventions.